Opinion

The Miers nomination: Washington politics at its finest

By Joshua Frank
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Download a .pdf file for printing.
Adobe Acrobat Reader required.
Click here to download a free copy.

October 17, 2005—Who would have thought that Harriet Miers, George W. Bush's choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, would be such a divisive figure? The conservative establishment hates her and the Democrats could care less.

It's not so surprising, really, that liberals aren't posing any probing questions about Miers' close connection to GW. Clearly it doesn't bother the Dems that she was paid $19,000 to help Bush dodge National Guard questions back in Texas in the mid-1990s by playing a scandalous role in silencing Benjamin Barnes, the man who supposedly had the lowdown on how Bush got out of serving in Vietnam. Nor does it bother the Democrats that Miers' old, firm Locke, Liddell & Sapp, was allegedly complicit it aiding a client in defrauding investors while she was an acting partner. Nope, the Dems are agreeably silent as per usual. Only conservatives seem infuriated this time around.

"Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on The West Wing, let alone to be a real one," says the radical right's leading lady, Ann Coulter. "If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke," wrote conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post.

It's Washington politics at its' finest. Bush has put up a nominee with absolutely no judicial experience whatsoever as payback to the Democrats for their overwhelming confirmation of archconservative, John Roberts. But despite Miers brief past as a conservative Democrat in the 1980s, and her firm's $1,000 contribution to Hillary Clinton's senatorial bid, there can be no mistake that Miers is a political pawn who will most likely be repaying the Bush family for years to come.

Just because Miers has never tried a case doesn't mean she won't be a conservative judge. Certainly, as her tenure at Locke, Liddel & Sapp indicate—the old lady has a penchant for enabling the criminally inclined. Perhaps she'll be defending Bush and his cohorts from the bench in the years to come.

But don't believe all the conservative hype over Harriet Miers. They aren't really all that peeved over Bush's blatant cronyism—if that really was their concern they would have raised the same red flag over his connections to Halliburton and Enron, too. No, the whole uproar over Miers is about Bush not showcasing the radical Right's backward political platform, not nepotism.

No matter what most right-leaning critics of Miers say, they are more concerned with her vague social policy stances than her connections to the Bush gang. The Right is horrified about the possibility that Miers will turn out to be the next Sandra Day. Surely that's what the Democrats are hoping for. But unlike O'Connor, one thing is crystal clear; the Miers nomination is more about politics than constitutional law.

Miers is no scholar, just a political operative. That alone should concern all those who don't trust Bush any farther than they could throw him. If only Democrats could turn against Miers with the same vigor as Coulter and crew have. Awwww, wishful thinking. Honestly, I think we're more likely to see Bush get caught with a cigar and an intern than for that to ever happen.

Joshua Frank is the author of the new book, "Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush," just published by Common Courage Press. To learn more visit www.brickburner.org.